WIll North Carolina Sully Its Constitution?

The Virginian Pilot is not always overly friendly to LGBT issues - perhaps because some in the Batten family that control the newspaper are big supporters of what I in my opinion are Christianist organizations. Therefore, it's a pleasant surprise to see the today's main editorial in the Virginian Pilot (the papers area of circulation includes a piece of northeastern North Carolina) slam the Amendment 1 effort in North Carolina which seeks to write the same anti-gay bigotry into that state's constitution as was done in Virginia in 2006. For those who don't know, in Virginia household pets have higher standing under the law than LGBT Virginians who are open game for all kinds of discrimination be it in employment, housing, benefits, and of course in terms of absolutely zero recognition of of committed live relationships. True to form, the haters in North Carolina are seeking to dress Amendment 1 up as a protection of religious freedom rather than the embedding of special rights for Christians in the state's Constitution. Here are excerpts from the editorial:

Some things simply shouldn't be subject to a popular vote. Many have forgotten - including several current members of the U.S. Supreme Court - but the Constitution exists to protect the minority from the tyranny of majorities.

It often takes too long for society to realize how far the Constitution's principles extend. In its application, the Constitution protects women from discrimination based on gender. It protects everyone from segregation based on race. It protects people from being persecuted based on who they are.

Sadly, society has been far too slow in extending such obvious protections to homosexuals. Instead, politicians have left basic civil rights for gay Americans to the will of the heterosexual majority.

In some cases, that devolution has been for nakedly partisan reasons - to ensure electoral turnout. In some cases, the decision was left to voters because cowardice prevents lawmakers from doing what's right, what America's founding principles demand.

So Virginia, in 2006, sullied its own state constitution with a reprehensible bit of incoherent disenfranchisement. . . . That constitutional abomination remains largely untested, but even a plain reading should set off warnings about its impact on contracts, insurance policies and criminal justice, to say nothing of civil law. Yet Virginia voters approved it anyway, subjecting the fate of a minority of gay Virginians to the will of everyone else.

North Carolina gets its turn in May. Tellingly, it's the only state in the South without a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage. But now that Republicans are in control of the state Senate, an amendment that had repeatedly died in committee will get its spot on the May 8 ballot . . .

To say North Carolina's marriage amendment is better than Virginia's is no praise. It directly addresses one of the major shortcomings in Virginia's version by explicitly preserving the rights of gay people to enter into contracts. But it still leaves the fundamental rights of a minority subject to the patience and good will of a majority. And that is wrong.